Ed Barna – Rutland County Herald April 4, 2008

Scott Ritter, former head of weapons inspection in Iraq who protested there were no weapons of mass destruction to justify an invasion, believes the same is true for Iran.

But there is an 80 percent chance of war with Iran, he told about 200 people Wednesday at Middlebury College as part of a series of talks facilitated by the Vermont Peace and Justice Center.

The pattern of preparations for such a conflict has been steadily developing and involves Congress as well as the Bush-Cheney administration, he said.

Scott Ritter

People ask him if he feels vindicated by the absence of WMDs in Iraq, he said, but “there isn’t any vindication in being right about this one.” A war with Iran would hasten the ongoing decline of American standing in the world, and afterward Russia and China would be ready to take advantage of the resulting power vacuum, he said.

Among the war clouds Ritter cited were:

· Preemptive strikes against the two groups most likely to erupt if the United States invaded Iran, Hezbollah (unsuccessfully attacked by Israel) and Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army (unsuccessfully attacked in Basra by Iraq’s central government).

Ritter predicted a similarly disappointing showing if the American forces attacked Iran, a country 2-1/2 times as large and populous as Iraq that is much more unified culturally and did not have its army destroyed in a previous war with the United States.

· Recent visits to Middle Eastern allies by high officials, ostensibly for other purposes, but really to prepare them for the effects of such a war.

· The appearance of the “miracle laptop,” as Ritter called it, a thousand pages of technical documents supposedly from a stolen Iranian computer, which dubiously had just the sort of information the administration needed to support a hard-line stand on Iran.

· Congressional supplementary funding for more “bunker-busting” bombs, with a contract completion deadline of April.

· Congressional supplementary funding for the extra bombers to carry those bombs, with a contract completion date of April.

· Cheney’s order to send a third aircraft carrier battle group close to the Persian Gulf, a necessary bolstering of forces for a war with Iran.

Admiral William Fallon, the first admiral to be head of Central Command, said that level of naval forces was unnecessary and blocked the move. Ritter said that was “a heroic thing.”

The main target of Ritter’s criticisms was an American public that couldn’t pass a test on the Constitution and understands little of international history and politics, and refuses to believe the life of an Iraqi is worth as much as the life of an American.

He began his talk, not by trumpeting the danger of war, but by talking about spring, and the birds that will soon have babies in their nests. Mother birds will forage, come to the nests, see open mouths begging for food, and puke into each one, he said.

Just so, Ritter said, people sit in front of their televisions every night and wait to be stuffed with mushy phrases like “The surge has been successful” and “Baghdad is 70 percent secure” and “We have apparently won the war.”

“The reality of Iraq is that it is a broken nation,” Ritter said. Groups like the Kurds and Shia are not unified groups, there is already a civil war, and most of the opposition to our presence comes from our being the invaders, he said.

“It is far too easy to look for people to blame,” he said. For instance, “we blame the media, but the media simply give us what we’re asking for.”

Everyone needs to start understanding and caring about their Constitutional rights, and everyone needs to start finding the facts for themselves and taking strong individual stands, Ritter said. If you do nothing but take in what the TV and newspapers tell you, “all you’re going to get in return is puke.”

WASHINGTON—Economists say the United States may be in a recession, but the personal finances of members of Congress suggest they will be able to weather the storm far better than most Americans, according to a new analysis of three years of lawmakers’ personal financial reports by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

U.S. senators had a median net worth of approximately $1.7 million in 2006, the most recent year for which their financial data is available, and 58 percent of the Senate’s members could be considered millionaires. In the House of Representatives, the median net worth was about $675,000, with 44 percent of members having net worths estimated to be at least $1 million. By contrast, only about 1 percent of all American adults had a net worth greater than $1 million around the same time.1

Before the American economy showed signs last year of slowing down, lawmakers had enjoyed an extraordinary run in their personal investments and other finances. Members of Congress, who are now paid about $169,000 annually, saw their net worths soar 84 percent from 2004 to 2006, on average.

“Like a lot of Americans, as the economy did well, Congress did well—but lawmakers did especially well,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. “Now that the nation’s economic road is turning rougher, members of Congress have a far more comfortable cushion than most Americans have to ride it out. If their constituents experience economic hardships, policymakers, who are in a position to help boost the economy, generally won’t feel the same pain.”

The figures on elected representatives’ personal wealth come from the financial disclosure reports they were required to file most recently, covering 2006, and from their reports for the preceding two years. CRP’s award-winning website, OpenSecrets.org, details the finances of members of Congress in a free, publicly available, searchable database, along with the finances of the president, vice president and selected executive branch officials. As of last week, this 17-month-old Web tool now contains data on officials’ finances for 2004 through 2006, allowing for easy comparisons of their wealth over the three-year period. Data for 2007 will be integrated after those reports are made available to the public this summer.

while larger, portfolios mirror americans’ investments

In many ways, the investment portfolios of members of Congress resemble the holdings of other American investors. Lawmakers invest most commonly in blue-chip stocks, such as General Electric, Microsoft, Pfizer and Exxon Mobil. They have millions of dollars invested in politically influential industries that they also regulate, including real estate (at least $249.8 million, which includes property they own), commercial banking ($94.5 million), pharmaceuticals and health products ($34.4 million), computers and Internet ($25 million), securities and investment ($24 million), the oil and gas industry ($21.7 million) and beer, wine and liquor ($9.8 million).

Despite the overall increase in politicians’ wealth, not all members of Congress are in sound financial shape, their own reports suggest. Some would even appear to be bankrupt. Twenty-one members of the House in 2006, plus two senators, had net worths that averaged in negative territory. One, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) may owe creditors as much as $7.3 million, according to his 2006 report. The wealthiest member of Congress in 2006 was Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), whose net worth CRP estimated to be $409.4 million.

Determining an official’s precise net worth is impossible using the financial disclosure forms that Congress currently employs, unfortunately. Assets and liabilities are disclosed in ranges, which are often very wide, preventing the public from determining their exact value. In Harman’s case, for example, she may be worth as much as $596.7 million or, by the most conservative measure, $222.2 million. CRP developed a methodology that accounts for these ranges, factoring in the minimum and maximum potential value of an official’s assets and liabilities and then calculating midpoints, or averages.

only opensecrets.org provides CITIZENS with this information

After more than a decade of posting scanned images of lawmakers’ financial reports on OpenSecrets.org, the Center for Responsive Politics created a searchable database in 2006. Previously, citizens, journalists and others could obtain these paper reports only at government offices in Washington or through Web sites that posted images. Using the Center’s database—the only one of its kind on the Internet—comparing the net worth of individual politicians, determining who owns stock in a particular industry and spotting potential conflicts of interest is simple, free and possible from anywhere in the world.

The Personal Financial Disclosures project on OpenSecrets.org is made possible by the Sunlight Foundation, which supports the use of the Internet and new information technology to enable citizens to learn more about what Congress and their elected representatives are doing, and thus help reduce corruption, ensure greater transparency and accountability by government and foster public trust in the vital institutions of democracy. Sunlight also funds databases on OpenSecrets.org that track federal lobbying, Washington’s “revolving door” and privately sponsored congressional travel.

CRP’s database of personal financial disclosures relies on reports filed by the government officials themselves. Sometimes filers leave out information in one year’s report but include it in the prior or following year’s form, which makes changes in their finances from year to year appear misleadingly dramatic. Other valuable information is not required to be disclosed, such as the value of the official’s primary residence (unless it produces income).

“The current disclosure forms and filing process limit the public to just a snapshot of their elected representatives’ finances. For instance, lawmakers will file information on their tax returns in April that won’t show up in the financial disclosures that the public can see.” Krumholz said. “As always, we encourage people to explore OpenSecrets.org and tell us when they spot something that’s worth a closer look.”

The next personal financial reports for Congress and the executive branch, covering 2007, are due May 15. They will be incorporated into OpenSecrets.org’s database after the data is made available to the public. Improving on its transparency, the House of Representatives will post members’ personal financial disclosures online beginning this year. Senators have not announced any plans to give the public similar electronic access to their information.

1SOURCE: 10th Anniversary Edition of the World Wealth Report by investment firms Merrill Lynch and Capgemini, published 2006

 BBC News Wednesday, 27 February 2008, 17:15 GMT

The alleged victims vomited after being made to eat fouled food

Several white students in South Africa face criminal charges after allegedly forcing black campus employees to eat food that had been urinated on.

A video has surfaced which appears to show the students instructing five elderly workers to drink beer and perform athletic tasks.

At one point, the University of Free State employees are apparently forced to eat food which has been urinated on.

The rector at the university has strongly condemned the video.

Students and staff joined a protest march at the campus in Bloemfontein, and student groups say they are now planning to call nationwide anti-racism demonstrations.

The video was reportedly recorded in protest at moves to integrate black and white students in the same residences at the University of the Free State.

The BBC's Mpho Lakaje says the university is known for having predominantly white students since the days of apartheid.

In recent years it has encountered difficulties trying to integrate people from other racial groups, and the latest incident is viewed by many as a clear indication of racial intolerance, he says.

'Upset'

The video shows five black people allegedly being instructed by a group of white students to down full bottles of beer, reports our correspondent, who has watched it.

Students rallied near the campus, and other protests are planned

The university workers are then led to a playing field where they are told to display their athletic skills.

But it is the final extract of the film that has angered members of the public. It shows a white male urinating on food, and then - shouting: "Take! Take!" in Afrikaans - apparently forcing the campus employees to eat the dirty food, and causing them to vomit.

The alleged perpetrators are current or former students at the University of the Free State, say reports.

Its rector, Frederick Fourie, told the BBC that he was "extremely upset about the incident".

"We are having a management meeting. And there's a strong condemnation of this from everybody concerned," he said.

The university says it has begun procedures to suspend the students allegedly implicated in the video, and says the alleged victims have received psychological support.

Protests

On Wednesday, hundreds of black students and workers from the institution handed over a list of demands to management.

Siviwe Vamva, from the South African Students Congress, said the group was planning to call a national strike on Thursday 6 March to raise the profile its anti-racism campaign.

He said racism was also still a problem in other universities.

"It's not only the University of Free State," Mr Vamva said.

"We are saying that all these issues must be brought forward so that all the people of South Africa can see that racism is still a dominant feature in South African society."

The South African Institute of Race Relations has said this incident and several others over the past month could threaten general improvements in race relations since the end of apartheid.

The institute also condemned the shooting of four black people by a white youth, and the decision by the Forum for Black Journalists to evict a white journalist from a meeting.

George Bush , is a war monger. His concept of of diplomacy is to constantly talk about war. In this day, the way to have a war is to keep talking about it. These are words that come from a man who has said, in order to catapult the propaganda you have to keep talking about it. It’s not too hard to see where this man is heading. Is it possible that in the final days of his presidency, like the man drunk with power that he is, he will do one  last thing to leave his mark on the world? I am reminded of a dog who keeps marking his territory as he goes from tree to tree to fire hydrant constantly pissing .The irresponsibility of a leader of one of the largest countries in the world to keep threatening to attack other countries is inexcusable. Perhaps we will look back on these days and learn from our mistakes and stop making excuses for them. Sadly, I don’t think he’s a bad man or an evil man, much like Nixon he believes he is doing the right thing, but this is the worst type of man in power. He truly believes he is bringing peace to the world and yet, in the words of Che Guevara we are in the midst of many Viet Nam’s and by doing so we are facing our own demise. It’s a shame, for too long we have come to the rescue of

Israel and aligned  ourselves with both sides of the problem in that part of the world. We are taking a stand against Kosovo because they are angry at us for supporting Serbia’s independence and we had harsh words for the attacks on our embassy there. Yet when the buildings were attacked on 9/11 and 3,000 people were killed. We said nothing to the Arab government even though the majority of the attackers were Arabs. This type of double standard politics does nothing but win us many enemies.